[Poll/ Discussion] Nylander vs. Ehlers; only 2 options for Canucks at #6

[messier's_elbow]

For me top end speed isn't as important as acceleration and agility unless you are going end to end or you are going in on breakaways, at the nhl level there is not alot of room out there. I think nylander brings pretty much everything ehlers does plus more as he has a higher skill set, better playmaker, physically superior, can play center, and skating is almost just as good. It has to be between nylander and Ritchie depending on what direction the club wants to go!

I agree except throw Virtanen in there as well. Any one of those 3 is probably our target. As are they if we get the 10th overall and add in Fleury into the 10th overall mix.

[messier's_elbow]

Yes have you seen ritchie. Very similiar hockey iq and skating.

I love Ritchie as a prospect as well. Hes my choice after Nylander at 6th. His main problems are his consistency and his fitness level. If both of those things were at peak form though he would go first-third overall. Nylander has the highest ceiling at the draft , if hes available you take him. Sedins will mentor the @33% out of that kid.

[messier's_elbow]

Was that even English?

But you don't have to send a player to juniors if they weren't playing in juniors when they were drafted. Cederholm is an example of a player we drafted outside of juniors, but chose to go play there to better develop his game. Nylander is an example that could do any of the three options (juniors, AHL, Sweden), again, because he wasn't playing in juniors when he was drafted.

Nylander coming here to play with boys when hes been playing with men? Counter productive.

[messier's_elbow]

Canucks155

Only a handful of players in the NHL are like Lucic in terms of hitting, intimidation with skill (hmm Ritchie)

A big physical player has advantages over a small player. Kopitar at 224 goes into a corner with a 175 lb player. Who do you think wins that puck battle? How about shielding the puck from checks? Look LA is a big physical hockey team by anyones standards, apparently not yours.

Sorry you cant blame it all on Torts. The Canucks were physically manhandled by the Bruins in the 2011 Final. They were manhandled by the Kings in 2012 when they couldn't compete in the first round. They were manhandled by the Sharks in 2013 when they couldn't compete and were swept by the Sharks in the first round. How much do you need to see?

Torts was right about one thing, this isn't 2011 anymore and this team needs to be changed.

Yes skill plays into winning the cup but so does grit and a heavy line-up to get out of the western conference. The Canucks aging skill players are not what they once were and new skill and size is needed.

I am OPEN to Nyander. he has played with men and fared very well with his age peers at U18. Ehlers has skill and speed but is very small and played in the weakest highest scoring junior league. I am OPEN also to fast skilled physical players like Virtanen or Ritchie.

I just think the premise of this thread is flawed, suggesting that the only players worth anything to the Canucks at 6 are Ehlers and Nylander. Pretty certain Benning is not thinking that way. For all you know Fleury may even be an option, could easily go to the Hurricanes at 7.

The canucks lost the finals cause they were injured and burnt out. The Bruins won the battle of attrition.

[saucypass]

He does it with his suberb passing shot and hockey iq that lets him excel on a bad team not one with jonathan drouin on it.

What?

I believe he's talking about a pass disguised as a shot. Like the slap-pass that the Sedins used to use real often with Edler and Ehrhoff back in '11 on the PP.

[Cupless44]

The canucks lost the finals cause they were injured and burnt out. The Bruins won the battle of attrition.

That was part it it yes but when the refs put the whistles away Boston definately pushed us around.

What is your excuse for being manhandled in the playoffs in 2012 and 2013 when we won 1 playoff game in 2 first round exits? Or for our record against the big teams in our division this year?

[Cupless44]

A lot of talk about Richie as an alternative to small players Ehlers and Nylander which I am fine with but I believe the Canucks are more likely to take Virtanen if they don't pick Nylander.

[Watermelon]

True.

Daniel Sedin put up 42 points in 50 games in the year he got drafted. Sure, he had Hank, but still.

Alfie put up almost a ppg pace in the SHL and got drafted in the 6th round.

7 points is nothing.

I'm a bit too distracted w/ ur profile pic tho...

So now your comparing him to most-likely HHOFers, great. I hear you like Ehlers, don't know why though just look at the evidence. Kane 58 games 145 points vs Ehlers 63 games 104 points. Ehlers doesn't look so good compared to HHOFs does he, 104 points is nothing by your logic. Lets try the big PWF Ritchie. 61 games 74 points vs Can Neely 72 games 120 points, Ritchie sucks too I guess

[canucks155]

So now your comparing him to most-likely HHOFers, great. I hear you like Ehlers, don't know why though just look at the evidence. Kane 58 games 145 points vs Ehlers 63 games 104 points. Ehlers doesn't look so good compared to HHOFs does he, 104 points is nothing by your logic. Lets try the big PWF Ritchie. 61 games 74 points vs Can Neely 72 games 120 points, Ritchie sucks too I guess

Nylander had 1 goal. 1.

[JiffyPB]

Nylander had 1 goal. 1.

The Sedins were overagers in their draft years and had an extra year to show off their offensive prowess. Backstrom and Lindholm were also overagers and in the same stage of development as Nylander they both had ZERO points in 19 and 12 games respectively in the SEL. Henrik at the same stage of development had one goal and FIVE points total in 39 games and Daniel had 12 points (remember secondary assists do not count in the SEL which statistically will be a significant disadvantage for any playmaker vs a finisher like Daniel). To put it in perspective, Nylander outscored HENRIK SEDIN in half the games played in his first stint in the SEL without having a twin brother finishing for him and you even have a guy like Peter Forsberg praising him. Not bad at all in my eyes.

[elvis15]

That was part it it yes but when the refs put the whistles away Boston definately pushed us around.

What is your excuse for being manhandled in the playoffs in 2012 and 2013 when we won 1 playoff game in 2 first round exits? Or for our record against the big teams in our division this year?

Except we were the bigger team on average and out hit them leading up to and including the finals. Put away the whistles, sure, but they'd didn't manhandle us anywhere but the scoreboard.

Size hasn't ever been our issue, and it's not like it magically is now.

[johngould21]

Except we were the bigger team on average and out hit them leading up to and including the finals. Put away the whistles, sure, but they'd didn't manhandle us anywhere but the scoreboard.

Size hasn't ever been our issue, and it's not like it magically is now.

With all due respect, I think size is an issue against teams like the LAK, SJS, and the Ducks. Those three teams truly do manhandle the Canucks.

[elvis15]

With all due respect, I think size is an issue against teams like the LAK, SJS, and the Ducks. Those three teams truly do manhandle the Canucks.

And yet we didn't lose games this year because of size. It was because we played poorly and/or didn't have enough skill. That those teams are big is relatively immaterial to the reason why we lost those games.

Would I like the team to be bigger? Sure, but not at the expense of skill. Am I going to draft based on skill regardless of size? No, but when there's a significant advantage for the skill level available I will.

Risk compared to potential would be other factors, but that's a different question.

[johngould21]

And yet we didn't lose games this year because of size. It was because we played poorly and/or didn't have enough skill. That those teams are

big is relatively immaterial to the reason why we lost those games.

Would I like the team to be bigger? Sure, but not at the expense of skill. Am I going to draft based on skill regardless of size? No, but when there's a significant advantage for the skill level available I will.

Risk compared to potential would be other factors, but that's a different question.

So you're saying that Getzlaf, Kopitar, or even Jumbo Joe, don't muscle the Canuck forwards off the puck regularly. The twins are two of the finest conditioned, skilled, athletes in the world, and any of those three can manhandle them with ease. Injuries, were a huge problem last season, but they don't match up well, size wise.

[canucks155]

The Sedins were overagers in their draft years and had an extra year to show off their offensive prowess. Backstrom and Lindholm were also overagers and in the same stage of development as Nylander they both had ZERO points in 19 and 12 games respectively in the SEL. Henrik at the same stage of development had one goal and FIVE points total in 39 games and Daniel had 12 points (remember secondary assists do not count in the SEL which statistically will be a significant disadvantage for any playmaker vs a finisher like Daniel). To put it in perspective, Nylander outscored HENRIK SEDIN in half the games played in his first stint in the SEL without having a twin brother finishing for him and you even have a guy like Peter Forsberg praising him. Not bad at all in my eyes.

Ok. I didn't know there were a lot of "overagers" who played in the SHL who were bad when they were 17/18 but good when they were older.

I also didn't know that it's only 1 assist that counts.

I know I said 1 goal signifies problems, but I don't care about stats too much. I may come off hypocritical, but I thought 1 goal was a problem b4 u said that the other guys were older. I have no doubt in my mind that Nylander will put up 40 points next year in Sweden if he doesn't make the NHL.

I just think Ehlers is better based completely off of his game tape.

[Cupless44]

Except we were the bigger team on average and out hit them leading up to and including the finals. Put away the whistles, sure, but they'd didn't manhandle us anywhere but the scoreboard.

Size hasn't ever been our issue, and it's not like it magically is now.

Sorry dude come to grips that we have a soft team and have for a few years. What we need is is big aggressive players on lines 2-4 that have enough skill to play regular shifts. A stiff like Sestito on the 4th line doesn't cut it in today's NHL. The teams that are winning have enough skill and size to roll 4 lines and play any style.

Some of you homers need to recognize our Canucks are a few years away from competing with the top teams in the western conference. We have an aging soft slowing team full of big salaries and NTCs.

[Cupless44]

Except we were the bigger team on average and out hit them leading up to and including the finals. Put away the whistles, sure, but they'd didn't manhandle us anywhere but the scoreboard.

Size hasn't ever been our issue, and it's not like it magically is now.

Ok so you skipped over being trampled in the first round of 2012 and 2013 and being uncompetitive in our division this year. In your mind what is the reason the Canucks are no longer among the best 7-8 teams in the western conference?

[messier's_elbow]

That was part it it yes but when the refs put the whistles away Boston definately pushed us around.

What is your excuse for being manhandled in the playoffs in 2012 and 2013 when we won 1 playoff game in 2 first round exits? Or for our record against the big teams in our division this year?

What? I was talking about the 2011 cup run. I'm not making excuses , im talking about facts. They lost in 2012 and 2013 cause they were outclassed.

[Cupless44]

And yet we didn't lose games this year because of size. It was because we played poorly and/or didn't have enough skill. That those teams are big is relatively immaterial to the reason why we lost those games.

Would I like the team to be bigger? Sure, but not at the expense of skill. Am I going to draft based on skill regardless of size? No, but when there's a significant advantage for the skill level available I will.

Risk compared to potential would be other factors, but that's a different question.

Whatever excuse you want to trot out (and sorry to tell you size and grit is part of it) the fact is the Canucks record against the Kings, Ducks and Sharks this year was truly pathetic. We are no longer on the same plain as those teams and need to rebuild this team. Some of you need to stop living in 2011 and grasp reality.

[smokes]

Jensen and Hansen vs Sedin, Sedin, Edler, Naslund, Ohlund, Lack, Gradin...probably left a few more. History tells us Vancouver has had a lot of success with Swedes. History tells me to go for Nylander.